TreeDN- Tree-based CDNs for Live Streaming to Mass Audiences
draft-ietf-mops-treedn-04

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2024-05-06):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: alficles@gmail.com, draft-ietf-mops-treedn@ietf.org, evyncke@cisco.com, mops-chairs@ietf.org, mops@ietf.org
Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (TreeDN- Tree-based CDNs for Live Streaming to Mass Audiences) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Media OPerationS WG (mops) to
consider the following document: - 'TreeDN- Tree-based CDNs for Live
Streaming to Mass Audiences'
  as Informational RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2024-05-06. Exceptionally, comments may
be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning
of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  As Internet audience sizes for high-interest live events reach
  unprecedented levels and bitrates climb to support 4K/8K/Augmented
  Reality (AR), live streaming can place a unique type of stress upon
  network resources.  TreeDN is a tree-based CDN architecture designed
  to address the distinctive scaling challenges of live streaming to
  mass audiences.  TreeDN enables operators to offer Replication-as-
  a-Service (RaaS) at a fraction the cost of traditional, unicast-based
  CDNs- in some cases, at no additional cost to the infrastructure.  In
  addition to efficiently utilizing network resources to deliver
  existing multi-destination traffic, this architecture also enables
  new types of content and use cases that previously were not possible
  or economically viable using traditional CDN approaches.  Finally,
  TreeDN is a decentralized architecture and a democratizing technology
  in the way that it makes content distribution more accessible to more
  people by dramatically reducing the costs of replication.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mops-treedn/



No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

# Document History

> Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
> few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

This document reached broad agreement in the working group.

> Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
> the consensus was particularly rough?

There were comments from the working group that advanced the document, but
it was not contentious or difficult.

> Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
> so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
> responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
> questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

> For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
> the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
> plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
> either in the document itself (as RFC 7942 recommends) or elsewhere
> (where)?

This is not a protocol document.

## Additional Reviews

> Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
> IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
> from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
> reviews took place.

I do not believe the review of other working groups or organizations would
relevantly benefit this document.

> Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
> such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

This informational document does not impact any area that required formal
expert review.

> If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
> been checked with any of the recommended validation tools for syntax and
> formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
> the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
> comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
> in RFC 8342?

No YANG modules are present.

> Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
> final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
> BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

No formal languages are present within the document.

## Document Shepherd Checks

> Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
> document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
> to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

TODO: This

No, see the nits section. Two very minor changes appear to be required:
- Incorrect Unicode punctuation marks.
- An informational reference to an obsolete RFC.

> Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their
> reviewers encounter. For which areas have such issues been identified
> and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
> reviews?

I am not aware (and have been unable to locate) any such list for this area.

> What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
> Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard,
> Informational, Experimental or Historic)? Why is this the proper type
> of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Informational. This document describes a technology and technique that is
useful, but not itself a protocol. The Internet community is likely to find
it useful, but the document

> Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
> property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? To
> the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
> not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
> to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Yes.

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mops/NjUbdBcK6bmUbe1g4HoX21L2hV4/

> Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
> listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
> is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes. Link is above for consent.

> Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the idnits
> tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on
> authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
> some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

The Introduction section is named "Problem Statement". This appears to be an
acceptable editorial decision per RFC 7322§4.8.1.

One reference is slightly stale, but not critical:
- draft-ietf-ipsecme-g-ikev2-10 has a -11

The document has RFC 2119 boilerplate, but does not use any RFC 2119 keywords.

> Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG
> Statement on Normative and Informative References.

I do not believe so. There are a good number of informational references that
fall into the category of "see also". Understanding these additional references
is not key to understanding this document, but the references are useful because
they give the reader a place to start looking when trying to solve related
problems. This classification looks correct to me.

> List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
> the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
> references?

All normative references are freely available.

> Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
> 97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
> list them.

There are no normative downward references. There are a good number of
informative downward references, including references to draft documents, but
these documents are not critical to understanding the technology being presented.

> Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
> submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
> If so, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

> Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
> so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
> listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
> introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
> where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No.

> Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
> especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
> Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
> associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
> that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
> that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
> allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see RFC 8126).

The document correctly states that it has no IANA actions. This is consistent
with the text of the document and makes sense given its purpose.

> List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
> future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
> Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

No new registries are requested by this document.

# Document History

> Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
> few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?

This document reached broad agreement in the working group.

> Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
> the consensus was particularly rough?

There were comments from the working group that advanced the document, but
it was not contentious or difficult.

> Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
> so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
> responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
> questionnaire is publicly available.)

No.

> For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
> the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
> plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
> either in the document itself (as RFC 7942 recommends) or elsewhere
> (where)?

This is not a protocol document.

## Additional Reviews

> Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
> IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
> from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
> reviews took place.

I do not believe the review of other working groups or organizations would
relevantly benefit this document.

> Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
> such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

This informational document does not impact any area that required formal
expert review.

> If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
> been checked with any of the recommended validation tools for syntax and
> formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
> the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
> comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
> in RFC 8342?

No YANG modules are present.

> Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
> final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
> BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.

No formal languages are present within the document.

## Document Shepherd Checks

> Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
> document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
> to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?

TODO: This

No, see the nits section. Two very minor changes appear to be required:
- Incorrect Unicode punctuation marks.
- An informational reference to an obsolete RFC.

> Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their
> reviewers encounter. For which areas have such issues been identified
> and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
> reviews?

I am not aware (and have been unable to locate) any such list for this area.

> What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
> Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard,
> Informational, Experimental or Historic)? Why is this the proper type
> of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?

Informational. This document describes a technology and technique that is
useful, but not itself a protocol. The Internet community is likely to find
it useful, but the document

> Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
> property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? To
> the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
> not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
> to publicly-available messages when applicable.

Yes.

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mops/NjUbdBcK6bmUbe1g4HoX21L2hV4/

> Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
> listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
> is greater than five, please provide a justification.

Yes. Link is above for consent.

> Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the idnits
> tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on
> authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
> some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)

The Introduction section is named "Problem Statement". This appears to be an
acceptable editorial decision per RFC 7322§4.8.1.

One reference is slightly stale, but not critical:
- draft-ietf-ipsecme-g-ikev2-10 has a -11

The document has RFC 2119 boilerplate, but does not use any RFC 2119 keywords.

> Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG
> Statement on Normative and Informative References.

I do not believe so. There are a good number of informational references that
fall into the category of "see also". Understanding these additional references
is not key to understanding this document, but the references are useful because
they give the reader a place to start looking when trying to solve related
problems. This classification looks correct to me.

> List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
> the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
> references?

All normative references are freely available.

> Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
> 97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
> list them.

There are no normative downward references. There are a good number of
informative downward references, including references to draft documents, but
these documents are not critical to understanding the technology being presented.

> Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
> submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
> If so, what is the plan for their completion?

No.

> Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
> so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
> listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
> introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
> where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.

No.

> Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
> especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
> Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
> associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
> that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
> that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
> allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see RFC 8126).

The document correctly states that it has no IANA actions. This is consistent
with the text of the document and makes sense given its purpose.

> List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
> future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
> Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.

No new registries are requested by this document.